NCL ruined vacation

The topic is "Are NCL selling cruises to ports they have no intention of going to." Its about "intention" to deliver what was offered and what was paid for. Its not about whether NCL has the right to screw you or whether they are satisfying their contractual obligations. If you feel that my opinion is irrelevant or if you feel the need to justify NCLs behaviour then maybe you should start a different topic.

1 minute ago, RocketMan275 said:

Australian T&C are irrelevant to US based cruises.  The EU has other T &C too.

You're missing the point. NCL does sell cruises to destinations they dont intend taking you to and dont give a f about its valud pssenger or even what its own contract says. The fact that the US consumer law (or equivalent) allows NCL the right to screw their customers is both sad and reflective of NCLs culture. So many people are angry over bait and switch because they feel ripped off and telling them that they should have read their contract doesnt explain why itineraries are changed after the cancellation date or like us when you get on board

3 hours ago, luv2kroooz said:

You'll see it from time to time, but the overwhelming majority of the time it will relate to a safety issue....either weather or civil unrest in a port or an unexpected mechanical problem. Things happen that are outside of a cruise lines control and that is understandable. This is the very reason why there is a cruise contract....it gives the cruise line discretion in the event of an unforeseen situation.

 

What you are seeing on these boards are itinerary changes that are a matter of convenience for NCL.....they want to work on their engines so they are going to slow at a reduced speed, they want to conserve fuel, so they are skipping a port, they received some sort of guest feedback....totally different ballgame and it is an abuse of the cruise contract.

The Star dropped paradise bay in Antarctica saving 400km of fuel burn. Weather, safety, security, mech-eng were all fine. 

9 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

Evidently  you missed this sentence in the T&C:  "In the event of strikes, lockouts, stoppages of labor, riots, weather conditions, mechanical difficulties or any other reason whatsoever, Norwegian Cruise Line has the right to cancel, advance, postpone or substitute any scheduled sailing or itinerary without prior notice."

You'll notice the phrase 'or any other reason'.  This all compassing phrase does include 'enhance the passenger experience'.  

Evidently you didn't see one of my other posts that indicated the Australians are issued with different T&Cs (to provide better protection under Australian Consumer law) that does NOT say NCL can do what ever it wants

@luv2kroooz well said. FYI In Australia we have consumer law that protects customers from this type of behaviour. In fact the T&C provided by NCL in Australia are different to those cited in previous posts. The clause on itinerary change is limited to a defined list of reasons which does not include the aspect of their right to change the itinerary for any reason. 

5th Feb (and the cruise right after this cruise) on norwegian star dropped paradise bay on mainland Antarctica to add 2 extra hours at Stanley in the Falkland Islands to "enhance the passenger experience" which is not a reason listed in NCL's terms and conditions. They replaced paradise bay with a few hours at admiralty bay on the south Shetland Islands some 400km north of mainland Antarctica. Most of the scenery was desolate land not covered by snow - hardly a replacement for mainland Antarctica 

You should also read

Start at the top

@RocketMan275hmmm no direct evidence as no cruise line will open their books to the public. I suggest that skipping a port saves on port fees and regulatory charges. An extra day at see increases their bar, casino, beauty spa and other department revenue. Yes it impacts on shore excursions but they only lose their margin for a small percentage of passengers the take an excursion.

@Panhandle Couple the captain of the star directly told my wife and me that the Star's itinerary allowed for the speed restriction. He confirmed the there was no reason why we couldn't have sailed to Antarctic peninsula. NCL saved approximately 700km of fuel.

@Redtravel i totally agree. However, in our case weather was perfect, there were no health, security, mechanical, bio hazard or other reasonable reason for our change in itinerary.

@cruiseny4life i cant deny that we still might have take  the cruise. However Australian consumer law affords certain rights that cant be waived by an all encompassing get out of jail clause. The issue for us is that we weren't given the opportunity to consider our options. 

Re cost cutting. I also dont have a problem with that but it should be fair and reasonable and not at the expense of the passengers expectation and experience 

@RocketMan275 i thought you were asking for evidency regarding cost cutting - which is the key reason why they drop ports. They are not going to publish that they intentionally delay advising passengers!

@RocketMan275https://cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/2024/02/nclh-new-
transformation-office-driving-cost-cutting/

@complawer: If we would have been advised before leaving Australia then yes. We would have had a discussion with our travel agent to move us to another cruise. Regarding tracking down 2000 people - yes that's what they should do.  NCL does have everyone's contact details so how difficult can it be to email their 'valued guests'? The issue is that they didn't and not advising us until after boarding was strategic/intentional. The change of itinerary was driven by a cost cutting initiative (as described by NCL's President and CEO). This is where IT IS WRONG. My bucket list destination should not change because NCL want to make more money. 

@complawyerNCL replaced Antarctic mainland and a day of coastal sailing with a few hours at South Shetland Islands and no explanation. Miami told the captain 2 days before cruise departure but didn't tell passengers until they were onboard. Then they did the same thing to the cruise that followed our cruise. The did same to a cruise around south africa. This is NCL’s current operating model.

In our case booking through a local (Australian) travel agency for a cruise provided by an American billion dollar company is better for us. NLC is happy to ignore complaints from a few thousand customer when they take nearly 1 million passengers per year. On the other hand the travel agency cannot ignore us and have to explain how our consumer guarantees have been provided.

See message #212 to understand NCL’s mode of operation 

Compensation?  Many passenger have written to NLC. They all received a standard reply saying nothing, offering nothing and rejecting demands for compensation. That's why our current strategy is to go directly to the company in Australia that sold us the cruise. Technically we dont have a commercial relationship with NCL Holdings. Our demand letter is in and now we wait for a reply 

@KSSS2013 thanks we will.  We have one booked for September but not NCL

@yakcruiser missing ports for weather security or bio/health reasons are understandable but to drop the bucket list port on the bucket list cruise with no explanation is not acceptable especially when they withhold that fact until getting on board. We had 100s of angry passengers fronting reception on board demanding an explanation and none was provided and no sign of the captain 

In Australia you cant waive your consumer rights (law) by taking a cruise under their contract. 2 days before sail NLC dropped the bucket list destination (paradise bay on mainland Antarctica) and waited untill after departure to advise passengers. Then they did the same thing to the passengers on the cruise straight after ours. On a cruise around Africa the did similar.

This behaviour is actually NCL’s current mode of operation. We have learned through many sources, including Cruise Industry News, that this is part of NCL’s cost cutting transformation initiative. Harry Sommer, president and CEO of NCL Holdings is quoted as saying that NLC has adopted a “company-wide focus” to reduce costs, and a “relentless focus on cost optimisation”. We will not sail with a company that displays such low regard for its customers. NLC has lost its way because its moral compass is broken.